@ Sandy: dear Sandy, thanks for your info. However, i have no such interest. I do not debate what you say, it has been proven to be true for roulette wheels. My goal is a different one. I'm trying to learn all that could be learned about the possible formations of unconnected objects. I'm looking for unknown facts, not known facts


@Turner: the mechanisme that leads to the statistical "law" of the third, could that also be connected to the fact that clustering must occur in random sequences (also a statistical "law")?


Grts dave

@Turner,


Thanks! Your answer(s) are really helpful!


Dave

@Nicksmi,  thanks for your welcome! I think i agree with you that the layout does not matter. however, there might be more to roulette(i do not know this for a fact, just an idea)


@Turner: this is exactly what i meant! Although stated clumsily. If i would not know anything about how the objects are drawn, and the place to lay my bets is a piece of paper. So you know what bet to place. Withou spilling the beams: do you think that my "gedanken experiment" could help me?


Dave

Hi all,


I'm bugged by a simple question: in roulette we have a number generator, and a place to put our bets. The question i have is this, what if the number generator would be a sack of marbles, and the table design would be totally up to me. Would this make sense? Or stated differently, what is the relevance of the current table layout? There is a multitude of other layouts: triangle, line, circle, square, apart from the shae i can rotate and translate etc. Why should we prefer one above the other?


Questions questions questions, sigh...